Hmm makes the triple and quadriple 6's a pretty bad thing to roll. You could end up having 3 phases in a row with less usable dice than a single roll with no 6's

We didn't mind extra moves and extra shock removal as a tactical initiative but we did object to endless shooting phases especially as the target could be standing in the open motionless

But those rolls are just free rolls anyway, as if you didn't get them then you wouldn't be rolling anyway. All it does it limit how much you can do with the bonus phase. I might still add the not firing more than once rule in as well.

True but Riches intention was that you.did get an initiative advantage by the 6's and it.is up to you to use them.

Yes, but the reason for the proposed changes is that currently we find these initiative advantages having the capability of being too influential - some games seem to come down to who is luckier at rolling more multiple sixes in a row, and that seems a bit of a shame, and sometimes spoils a game, at least from where we are standing. Hence the drive to try and reduce their effectiveness a bit, without getting rid of them entirely. So rather than potentially getting 5 extra activations per extra phase, you get three for a double phase, and then a maximum of 1 for a third phase. Still allows you do things, just not as many, and stops the ability to have four phases or more in a row.

Try being the attacker.without.them.? you will.find it.is a protracted firefight until one side eventually crumbles.

If the only way you can operate properly as the attacker is to get luckier than the defender and get more extra phases then they do, then this may be a fault in the how the battle is balanced, or in the game system. Still, I don't pretend to be an expert at then game, as I have not played it nearly enough, so only some testing on the proposed rules would reveal whether they minimize the advantage of extra phases too much or not.

There is luck involved in every command dice roll of 5 or 6 dice
Not to mention all the others
What the 6's does is give you a chance to use initiative - what you make of it is up to you.
Anyway let use know how your play tests go and how you find it.

I have to admit this aspect of the rules is the one that gives rise to the greatest number of questions. complaints and house rules and we have tried a number of them but not all by any means!

Over 5 years of playing we have stretches where the luck is fairly even and no one complains then we will have a run of games with extreme luck. Last month we had one where I rolled numerous double turns 2 triples and a quadruple and my opponent added a few doubles and a triple - other games we play 2 hours with no turn end at all.

Another idea that has occurred to me is to have an initiative token system to replace the normal extra phase system:

1. For every six you roll on a command roll you get an initiative token.
2. These tokens can be spent in your own phase to roll an additional command dice, one per token spent.
3. Might want to limit how many can be spent in one phase, based upon troop quality e.g. Green 4, Regular 5 and Elite 6?
4. Could allow player to turn initiative tokens into CoC dice pips, either on a 1 to 1 basis, or 2 to 1 etc?
5. Could limit the total amount a user can collect?
6. Add a new CoC die ability – use a CoC dice to get 5(?) initiative tokens, or maybe remove the same from your opponent’s token stash.

So there are no extra phases, just the ability to throw extra command dice in your current phase by spending any initiative tokens you have. This would allow players to collect enough to make the big initiative swings that are interesting without them being too overpowered, hopefully, and also means that single sixes are not pointless to throw, but contribute to your initiative swing potential. Triple sixes would still result in turn end, and the player can use these tokens to generate command dice immediately at the beginning of the new turn i.e. can have their command dice, end the turn, and then continue to act in the new turn.

This does pretty much what my original idea does, but allows slightly more scope for bigger effects then my first idea, and also gives players more tactical options of when and how to use them. Obviously still needs some fine-tuning to answer some of the questions posed above.

There is already an option in some CoC scenarios Campaigns, Winter Storm for example, for a better led and trained platoon to draw upon a small pool of extra Command Dice to be spent to increase the dice rolled by 1 in a phase. That additional benefit allows the player more tactical options in that phase and can be quite powerful, but does not replace the double phase possibility embedded in the rules. It is not a substitute for the Platoon Commander "seizing the initiative" and creating a local advantage which the double phase mechanic allows.

Allowing tactical initiative tokens to be accumulated and played all at once would also reduce an important element in the rules in terms of the Command Capacity of the Platoon Commander which is limited by the number of Command Dice available which forces players to prioritise.

Eliminating the double phase possibility entirely, which you are now suggesting, converts the game into an entirely "I Go, You Go" system and removes part of the built in friction and options currently available. It would be a significant step. I would suggest that you should play the rules as written rather more before going down that road. My experience has been like TT's the "double phase luck" evens out over time.

Eliminating the double phase possibility entirely, which you are now suggesting, converts the game into an entirely "I Go, You Go" system and removes part of the built in friction and options currently available. It would be a significant step. I would suggest that you should play the rules as written rather more before going down that road. My experience has been like TT's the "double phase luck" evens out over time.

John

It only removes the double phase possibility in name only, not in actual game effect i.e. you still get the same bonus as a double phase (more command dice to roll). After all the current rules are IGUG anyway even with double phases - Extra phases just extend your current go in actuality, which is what the token idea does as well. So I don't really see the difference. If the extra phase terminology is useful, then all you do is say that when you play these tokens it is a new phase i.e. you play the tokens in a new phase, rather than just viewing them as being additional dice in the initial phase.

If you cap how many extra dice can be used in a phase then you do remove the ability to have more than one extra phase, but you don't need to put a limit on it if you want to allow players to build up large amounts of tokens and then use them all at once (i.e. start to have triple or more phases in the official rules).

I would also add another rule to the ones I suggested, which is that any sixes rolled on these extra token bought dice do not add additional tokens i.e. tokens are only gained from sixes rolled on your base command dice.

Interesting that a slimmed down version of the idea has appeared in some campaigns before.

It only removes the double phase possibility in name only, not in actual game effect i.e. you still get the same bonus as a double phase (more command dice to roll). After all the current rules are IGUG anyway even with double phases - Extra phases just extend your current go in actuality, which is what the token idea does as well. So I don't really see the difference.

The difference is in how many times a unit can be activated before an opponent gets to take an action. I assume that you're not changing the "units may only be activated once in any given phase" rule, so by going to your system you are fundamentally changing how the game plays out on the tabletop. Also, at a certain point, rolling more Command Dice doesn't really help you - especially if you have good Senior Leader coverage. So collecting tokens may not actually be the kind of bonus you think it's going to be, as they are likely to be of limited use. This is doubly true if you need to decide to use them before you roll your Command Dice.

But to me, the single activation per phase limitation is what completely leaves your proposed idea dead-on-arrival. You really are explicitly turning the game into IGOUGO, and that's something that the multiple phase mechanic in the rules as written is itself explicitly designed to break (along with overwatch, interrupts, and ambushes). I'm OK with making multiple successive phases increasingly harder to achieve, but I think your token proposal completely breaks the spirit behind the game.

Last edited by Munin on Mon May 13, 2019 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

One possibility that might work is to allow a unit after receiving fire in the first phase of a double phase to adopt a tactical stance in subsequent phases. This represents them looking for cover under sustained fire. If a unit was not shot at in first phase, it cannot go tactical in the second.

Player A on the first phase shoots at a unit.
After the phase completes but before Player A rolls for the second phase, Player B declares the unit as tactical.
Player A can shoot at the unit but it now counts as one cover level better.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable suggestion, but there are some bookkeeping details that would need to be hammered out. For instance, would add the caveat that the adoption of that Tactical stance should happen at the end of the phase. Otherwise, you'd only ever get one unit's shot off at an enemy before they dropped (as there's no real penalty to going Tactical as a reaction). I would also disallow them to adopt Tactical after a phase in which they used Overwatch fire, as that seems like getting a freebie.